Do you like people? Do you desire human connection? Do you have any mentors, or close family or friends that you *admire* or respect?
You seem to exhibit somewhat of a detached omniscience. You are undoubtedly an *incredibly* intelligent person. I wonder however, do you value your intellect/insight? Do you value intellect/insight in others? Are you looking to be understood, or challenged? Taught? Or simple listened to?
Yes. The point of communication is to bridge the existential divide that lies between each and every *one* of us. I am not you, you are not me. If you want to get to *know* me, and if I am to get to *know* you, integrity in communication is key. And by*know* I mean get to know all the internal processes that are more or less hidden from the "observable" world.
I can't see your brain or read your thoughts, tell me what you think, and tell me how you feel, words are an effective tool in "materializing" the abstract.
Language is a remarkable tool.
Ne tangent: Words are an effective tool in "materializing" the abstract.
I want so desperately to 'get' other people but it doesn't work very well at all.
But often there are such little things in the world that other people don't need to know about. My plans for scheduling one day, what I'm going to write in a little while. But because these are things that I'm thinking of, people immediately want to KNOW -- if I had gotten a penny for every thought that had been pried out of me with force, I'd be very, very wealthy.
A lot of what I say has a humanitarian edge on it, but that doesn't change that I want people to be healthy and happy and then just
shut up most of the time. Honestly, all throughout childhood, I honestly couldn't point out an 'idol' like most people could, and I'd always thought that the whole idea of role models and whatnot was stupid. I never said this, of course (is that a breach of integrity?). There are quite a few people that I respect, but I also know that they've done stupid things for both themselves and for me. I find it difficult to admire people themselves and a lot easier to admire qualities I see. People (and yes, I'm definitely there) are generally falliable and need to be monitored. And that's, well, one of the reasons that humans are social animals.
At this point I just want to understand. I'm not seeking to exert my influence on the world at the moment. Usually when I speak I'm expressing a want or need, taken from information about things I 'understand.' It'll probably be later when I understand the whole 'human race' thing that I'll want to say something more.
NFs, you get this more than I do. Just try to explain!
The point is... I'm not too interested in niceties but I like when people speak up because something's wrong. However, in the situation I outlined, the "no, nothing's wrong," actually translates into "I can handle myself" or "I don't know," either of which answers would likely freak the wife out. But, instead, he stuck to the answer that would cause the least trouble. It would be the husband's responsibility, then, to tell his wife what's going on once he's truly figured it out.
'Ne' is materializing the links, while 'Ni' says that words are liars. Ne would show all the neat things it's created from the data while Ni would sit and stare and wonder whether any of it was true or not, or what exactly was meant from it.
I've noticed some comments by NT's on this forum equating emotions with fakeness? And then they wonder why people call them robots. Yes, it's a point of frustration with me b/c how many times and ways do you need to tell someone 'you have made me angry' before they 'believe' you? Or it's like you have to write out a mathematical equation 'proving' that 1) you really are angry and 2) you anger is 'correct'.
And I'm sorry, but if you are uncomfortable and not very good at dealing with with emotions -- your own, other peoples, emotional displays in general, then where in the world do you get the idea that you're somehow qualified to 'judge' the 'authenticity' or 'value' of other people's emotional expression?
See, my valuing of authenticity is to be true to yourself and be HONEST with other people.
The one thing that pisses me off to no end is when people are so stuck inside themselves that they hide behind all this rationalizing, deflection, and bs instead of just coming out honestly and saying what they mean, what they feel, and why. Or just get so 'freaked out' by someone's responses to them they go on self-defense mode or attack. Sure, they're acting instinctively (?) but they aren't allowing themselves to be 'authentic' -- they're stuck and they are possibly invalidating someone who IS being authentic.
I've completely lost my train of the thought. Maybe I'll finish it later.
We NTs are trying to understand. I don't know about Sriv here, but I'm trying to eke out some practical use out of this and become better at that whole 'feeling' thing.
The question I'm asking, well, is if you want desperately to punch someone in the face, then do you do it, or do you restrain yourself? Of course, in an ideal world, one would not be angry to this point, or one would reason out differences and whatever in a reasonable manner, but sometimes the decision of what to do has to be simple, split-second one and in this case the discussion of that 'I love authenticity!' is useless and needs to be pushed aside for what's practical and which would most preserve integrity and be 'authentic.'
Now, if you replace the 'punch someone in the face' with 'go on a verbal rant,' would the outcome be any different?
We can all talk about how we love authenticity and integrity until the cows come home, but it's not going to equate into any sustainable advice. I know 'be true to yourself' is a nice sentiment, but sometimes you just can't get away with it. Well, maybe you NF types can get away with it and I can't. And that's not fair, but I'm trying to figure out how to deal with it. Will you help me, or not?